If this,

Traders are individuals who recognize property rights. Individuals are responsible and independent. — AppLeo

, is what Rand was trying to say, how can I be blamed for missing it when neither it nor anything resembling it, was included or hinted in the passage, nor any passage remotely adjacent to it? I don’t, for the same reason, think I can be blamed for proposing you simply made that up.

Just about anybody can take what Rand says as a bad thing, when Galt’s somewhat less than sustainable rant is mistaken for the foundation of a philosophy.

That there are decent tradesmen is completely irrelevant from the perspective of the proposition “The symbol of all relationships....”, they being merely exceptions to a generally toothless rule.

Interested parties can view the subject matter here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x08QhNX_a1iB5Dt5uEC21q_GMvrM0sbd6zba2UOb6c0/mobilebasic#!

, is what Rand was trying to say, how can I be blamed for missing it when neither it nor anything resembling it, was included or hinted in the passage, nor any passage remotely adjacent to it? I don’t, for the same reason, think I can be blamed for proposing you simply made that up. — Mww

You can be blamed for missing it because you haven't actually taken the time to read and understand her.

Just about anybody can take what Rand says as a bad thing, when Galt’s somewhat less than sustainable rant is mistaken for the foundation of a philosophy. — Mww

Well that's your opinion.

That there are decent tradesmen is completely irrelevant from the perspective of the proposition “The symbol of all relationships....”, they being merely exceptions to a generally toothless rule. — Mww

All traders are decent and are moral. Doesn't matter if it's a car salesman or an engineer. And you fail to understand why because you specifically chose "negative" traders.

All traders are decent and are moral. — AppLeo

Wow. Every single one of them? That's absurd. If that's supposed to be an accurate reflection of Rand's philosophy (or of Objectivism, if you make that distinction), then you're doing a terrible job of making a persuasive case in its favour.

How?

It needs no explanation. It speaks for itself.

No it doesn't.

And you are so bold as to say I haven’t read and don’t understand Rand, when you don't know I haven’t and I don’t? Because we disagree means I’m wrong? Wouldn’t it be better if you showed me how I was wrong, instead of claiming it despite the demonstration of a particular passage appearing to lack as much consensual philosophical merit as the entire message?

It has been long established that Rand both follows Kant is some regards, and demonizes him in others. But either way, the chances of her even being remembered as anything but a half-way decent fiction author, is directly related to her attacks on Kant, but hardly for a successful refutation of him.

The fact you don’t understand my use of the trades I chose, shows a distinct lack of understanding of the denial of a categorical assertion, which should have no exceptions, with a mere viable possibility. I summarily reject any philosophy that tells me what, who, and even why......but make no effort to tell me how, either from itself or from its proponents.

"I do not see it, or I refuse to see it. Therefore it doesn't". I guarantee you, others can and do, requiring no explanation. So what does that tell you?